Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(
Discussion
TTmonkey said:
He was being treated for an eye condition apparently, not depression.
Soooooo, perhaps a few people need to rethink their diagnosis....?
Maybeeeeee, but reports are suggesting he was may also still have been under treatment for physological problems too. And if the eyesight issues could threaten his career in the long term, must have been a real bummer and coudl have triggered old mental issues. Soooooo, perhaps a few people need to rethink their diagnosis....?
Are you a pilot?
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 28th March 17:26
Ayahuasca said:
Well he couldn't have predicted when the captain went to the loo, and maybe it was a matter of time before the door came down or the air force blew them up so he put it down quickly. Yes, some luck there I guess.
Interesting point in there - say they had got a Mirage or two alongside the A320 - what on earth do they do??Could they really be sure of what the co-pilot intends and bring it down?
Would not want to be the one making that decision......
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:M4cruiser said:
Dr Jekyll said:
To put it another way. How do you define authorised?
In this case the captain was authorised - as far as we know.But in that scenario he'd still be authorised with a knife to his throat being forced to gain access to the cockpit.
I guess we can go round and round in circles but I can't think of any solution that wouldn't be exploitable or have a "what if" scenario.
9mm said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:M4cruiser said:
Dr Jekyll said:
To put it another way. How do you define authorised?
In this case the captain was authorised - as far as we know.But in that scenario he'd still be authorised with a knife to his throat being forced to gain access to the cockpit.
I guess we can go round and round in circles but I can't think of any solution that wouldn't be exploitable or have a "what if" scenario.
The pilot in this case seems to have chosen a programmed and gradual descent.
He could just have easily have made a more drastic input and had the same effect.
///ajd said:
TTmonkey said:
He was being treated for an eye condition apparently, not depression.
Soooooo, perhaps a few people need to rethink their diagnosis....?
Maybeeeeee, but reports are suggesting he was may also still have been under treatment for physological problems too. And if the eyesight issues could threaten his career in the long term, must have been a real bummer and coudl have triggered old mental issues. Soooooo, perhaps a few people need to rethink their diagnosis....?
Are you a pilot?
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 28th March 17:26
As has been said, could have put him back into depression. Or the depression could have had nothing to do with it. I think he wanted to be 'famous'....
Willhire89 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Well he couldn't have predicted when the captain went to the loo, and maybe it was a matter of time before the door came down or the air force blew them up so he put it down quickly. Yes, some luck there I guess.
Interesting point in there - say they had got a Mirage or two alongside the A320 - what on earth do they do??Could they really be sure of what the co-pilot intends and bring it down?
Would not want to be the one making that decision......
Ayahuasca said:
Willhire89 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Well he couldn't have predicted when the captain went to the loo, and maybe it was a matter of time before the door came down or the air force blew them up so he put it down quickly. Yes, some luck there I guess.
Interesting point in there - say they had got a Mirage or two alongside the A320 - what on earth do they do??Could they really be sure of what the co-pilot intends and bring it down?
Would not want to be the one making that decision......
Head of state taking the call to down a plane full .....
Edited by Willhire89 on Saturday 28th March 18:40
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.killsta said:
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.killsta said:
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.killsta said:
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.
Standard ICAO Interception procedures (International Civil Aviation Organization), widely punblicised:http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL11.pdf
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Good luck with shooting the engines out - that doesn't tend to work. 
Ayahuasca said:
killsta said:
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Standard ICAO Interception procedures (International Civil Aviation Organization), widely punblicised:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL11.pdf
Nowhere in there does it state to 'show your missiles' in an attempt to get the civilian pilot to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL11.pdf
their pants, nor does it say to ring up David Cameron and ask him for permission to blow it out the sky.GSE said:
This is a typical response from those who have never suffered or understand depression. Can I suggest that you get a grip and do some research before posting. Depression means that you slowly stop to function, simple everyday tasks become difficult and you are unable to 'get as grip', as the uninformed love to quote.
There are various ways around it through cognitive therapy and drugs, but there seems to be no guarantee of a positive result and sometimes the effects get worse on the journey. Empathising is most certainly not counterproductive.
It seems this guy might have have developed criminal intent for some time, possibly as a consequence of the depression - the two combined have brought about this dreadful tragedy. Knee jerk reactions and name calling are the last things needed: The cockpit door policy invoked after 9/11 had a major flaw in that it was possible for someone in the Cockpit to completely lock out everyone else on board
Bluntly, I don't want people with mental illnesses piloting aircraft. As I see it, you do, for reasons associated with political correctness and because everybody is nice to each other these days aren't they? All I am saying is that those with mental stability issues should be excluded from flying aircraft full stop. There is a more general point here as well. I don't care what this man 'suffered from'. When you deliberately kill innocent third parties you have crossed a line beyond which sympathy does not exist. No one will recall their identity with anything other than disgust. We have seen a number of people like this, from serial killers, to crazed schoolboys, gunmen. In most cases, and also in this case, there have acquaintances or friends who knew they presented a risk but said nothing. His ex girlfriend for example. The police who gave Thomas Hamilton his firearms licence knew he was odd, but either could not or would not exercise the judgement call that would have deprived him of his weapons. Result dead children.There are various ways around it through cognitive therapy and drugs, but there seems to be no guarantee of a positive result and sometimes the effects get worse on the journey. Empathising is most certainly not counterproductive.
It seems this guy might have have developed criminal intent for some time, possibly as a consequence of the depression - the two combined have brought about this dreadful tragedy. Knee jerk reactions and name calling are the last things needed: The cockpit door policy invoked after 9/11 had a major flaw in that it was possible for someone in the Cockpit to completely lock out everyone else on board
I would rather have a few people unnecessarily locked away than a dangerous nutcase given the benefit of the doubt. Why for example are the James Bulger killers considered for parole? An individual whose mentality is such that they enjoy torturing toddlers is and always will be beyond any kind of help. It would be best, and probably a kindness to them, to give them a lethal injection, were it legal to do so.
This is entirely separate from the organisational issues relating to locks etc. However good your systems are, you cannot exclude the possibility of this kind of rampage without taking the dangerously mentally unstable out of society.
Most of these people have become estranged from society in their youth. I am all for trying to help them if you can. Once their personality is fully formed there may be little you can do but take them out of circulation.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 28th March 19:56
98elise said:
Ayahuasca said:
killsta said:
Ayahuasca said:
Believe they fly alongside and make 'follow me' signs. If no compliance they bank and show their missiles as a threat, if no compliance they fire a few rounds ahead of the plane, if no compliance they shoot at the engines. The decision is made by the head of state.
Where do people get info like this? Either we have a lot of well informed people on PH or people believe movies are real.cardigankid said:
GSE said:
This is a typical response from those who have never suffered or understand depression. Can I suggest that you get a grip and do some research before posting. Depression means that you slowly stop to function, simple everyday tasks become difficult and you are unable to 'get as grip', as the uninformed love to quote.
There are various ways around it through cognitive therapy and drugs, but there seems to be no guarantee of a positive result and sometimes the effects get worse on the journey. Empathising is most certainly not counterproductive.
It seems this guy might have have developed criminal intent for some time, possibly as a consequence of the depression - the two combined have brought about this dreadful tragedy. Knee jerk reactions and name calling are the last things needed: The cockpit door policy invoked after 9/11 had a major flaw in that it was possible for someone in the Cockpit to completely lock out everyone else on board
Bluntly, I don't want people with mental illnesses piloting aircraft. As I see it, you do, for reasons associated with political correctness and because everybody is nice to each other these days aren't they? All I am saying is that those with mental stability issues should be excluded from flying aircraft full stop. There is a more general point here as well. I don't care what this man 'suffered from'. When you deliberately kill innocent third parties you have crossed a line beyond which sympathy does not exist. No one will recall their identity with anything other than disgust. We have seen a number of people like this, from serial killers, to crazed schoolboys, gunmen. In most cases, and also in this case, there have acquaintances or friends who knew they presented a risk but said nothing. His ex girlfriend for example. The police who gave Thomas Hamilton his firearms licence knew he was odd, but either could not or would not exercise the judgement call that would have deprived him of his weapons. Result dead children.There are various ways around it through cognitive therapy and drugs, but there seems to be no guarantee of a positive result and sometimes the effects get worse on the journey. Empathising is most certainly not counterproductive.
It seems this guy might have have developed criminal intent for some time, possibly as a consequence of the depression - the two combined have brought about this dreadful tragedy. Knee jerk reactions and name calling are the last things needed: The cockpit door policy invoked after 9/11 had a major flaw in that it was possible for someone in the Cockpit to completely lock out everyone else on board
I would rather have a few people unnecessarily locked away than a dangerous nutcase given the benefit of the doubt. Why for example are the James Bulger killers considered for parole? An individual whose mentality is such that they enjoy torturing toddlers is and always will be beyond any kind of help. It would be best, and probably a kindness to them, to give them a lethal injection, were it legal to do so.
This is entirely separate from the organisational issues relating to locks etc. However good your systems are, you cannot exclude the possibility of this kind of rampage without taking the dangerously mentally unstable out of society.
Most of these people have become estranged from society in their youth. I am all for trying to help them if you can. Once their personality is fully formed there may be little you can do but take them out of circulation.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 28th March 19:56
In life you can't eliminate all risk unfortunately.
I've Always thought that having two pilots in the cockpit was for safety. I've never felt happy seeing one leave the cockpit and proceed to stand in the main cabin chatting with the cabin crew for 30 minutes. What happens if the remaining cockpit pilot has a sudden heart attack or simply makes a serious mistake?
I think both pilots should remain in the cockpit for the entire flight and they should have their own bathroom facilities.
The new anti-terrorism locked door policy made this event possible. It wasn't before. Locking the cockpit door from inside causes it's own risks. What happens if both pilots suddenly fall unconscious? Access to the cockpit would be impossible.
When cockpit doors were fitted with locks the whole operating procedure needed review.
I think both pilots should remain in the cockpit for the entire flight and they should have their own bathroom facilities.
The new anti-terrorism locked door policy made this event possible. It wasn't before. Locking the cockpit door from inside causes it's own risks. What happens if both pilots suddenly fall unconscious? Access to the cockpit would be impossible.
When cockpit doors were fitted with locks the whole operating procedure needed review.
Ayahuasca said:
Any RAF pilot who does QRA is trained on this. Not a massive secret. In this case, with the airliner flying over several countries, would be a bit tricky working out who has the final say I guess. Do they hand over the decision at each border?
It probably wouldn't be a very good idea to shoot down an airliner over foreign soil, no matter what was going on.wilwak said:
Locking the cockpit door from inside causes it's own risks. What happens if both pilots suddenly fall unconscious? Access to the cockpit would be impossible.
When cockpit doors were fitted with locks the whole operating procedure needed review.
I don't think it's as simple as that. The pilots can set the doors 3 ways on an Airbus.When cockpit doors were fitted with locks the whole operating procedure needed review.
Unlocked.
Allow someone knowing the code to unlock the cockpit door from outside - the normal setting.
Locked even against someone knowing the code.
If both pilots fell unconscious then an FA knowing the code could get in. Then presumably the press would demand ONLY one pilot in the cockpit at once to ensure they weren't both overcome by fumes or whatever.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff